Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of John 9:41
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
41. If ye were blind ] Christ returns to His own meaning of ‘blind’ or ‘they which see not’ in Joh 9:39. ‘If ye were conscious of your own spiritual darkness, if ye yearned and strove to reach the light, ye would not have sin (see on Joh 15:22); for either ye would find the light, or, if ye failed, the failure would not lie at your door.’ For the construction comp. Joh 5:46; Joh 8:19; Joh 8:42; Joh 15:19; Joh 18:36.
therefore your sin remaineth ] Better, your sin abideth (see on Joh 1:33): ‘therefore’ is an insertion, and must be omitted. ‘Ye profess to see: your sin in this false profession and in your consequent rejection of Me abideth.’ It was a hopeless case. They rejected Him because they did not know the truth about Him; and they would never learn the truth because they were fully persuaded that they were in possession of it. Those who confess their ignorance and contend against it, (1) cease to be responsible for it, (2) have a good prospect of being freed from it. Those who deny their ignorance and contend against instruction, (1) remain responsible for their ignorance, (2) have no prospect of ever being freed from it. Comp. Joh 3:36.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
If ye were blind – If you were really blind had had no opportunities of learning the truth. If you were truly ignorant, and were willing to confess it, and to come to me for instruction.
No sin – You would not be guilty. Sin is measured by the capacities or ability of people, and by their opportunities of knowing the truth. If people had no ability to do the will of God, they could incur no blame. If they have all proper ability, and no disposition, God holds them to be guilty. This passage teaches conclusively:
1.That people are not condemned for what they cannot do.
2.That the reason why they are condemned is that they are not disposed to receive the truth.
3.That pride and self-confidence are the sources of condemnation.
4.That if people are condemned, they, and not God, will be to blame.
We see – We have knowledge of the law of God. This they had pretended when they professed to understand the law respecting the Sabbath better than Jesus, and had condemned him for healing on that day.
Your sin remaineth – You are guilty, and your sin is unpardoned. Peoples sins will always be unpardoned while they are proud, and self-sufficient, and confident of their own wisdom. If they will come with humble hearts and confess their ignorance, God will forgive, enlighten, and guide them in the path to heaven.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 41. If ye were blind] If ye had not had sufficient opportunities to have acquainted yourselves with my Divine nature, by the unparalleled miracles which I have wrought before you? and the holy doctrine which I have preached, then your rejecting me could not be imputed to you as sin; but because ye say, we see-we are perfectly capable of judging between a true and false prophet, and can from the Scriptures point out the Messiah by his works-on this account you are guilty, and your sin is of no common nature, it remaineth, i.e. it shall not be expiated: as ye have rejected the Lord from being your deliverer, so the Lord has rejected you from being his people. When the Scripture speaks of sin remaining, it is always put in opposition to pardon; for pardon is termed the taking away of sin, Joh 1:29; Ps 32:5. And this is the proper import of the phrase, , which occurs so frequently in the sacred writings.
1. THE history of the man who was born blind and cured by our Lord is, in every point of view, instructive. His simplicity, his courage, his constancy, and his gratitude are all so many subjects worthy of attention and emulation. He certainly confessed the truth at the most imminent risk of his life; and therefore, as Stephen was the first martyr for Christianity, this man was the first confessor. The power and influence of TRUTH, in supporting its friends and confounding its adversaries, are well exemplified in him; and not less so, that providence of God by which he was preserved from the malice of these bad men. The whole story is related with inimitable simplicity, and cannot be read by the most cold-hearted without extorting the exclamation, How forcible are right words?
2. It has already been remarked that, since the world began, there is no evidence that any man born blind was ever restored to sight by surgical means, till the days of Mr. Cheselden, who was a celebrated surgeon at St. Thomas’s Hospital, London. For though, even before the Christian aera, there is reason to believe that both the Greek and Roman physicians performed operations to remove blindness occasioned by the cataract, yet we know of none of these ever attempted on the eyes of those who had been born blind, much less of any such persons being restored to sight. The cure before us must have been wholly miraculous-no appropriate means were used to effect it. What was done had rather a tendency to prevent and destroy sight than to help or restore it. The blindness in question was probably occasioned by a morbid structure of the organs of sight; and our Lord, by his sovereign power, instantaneously restored them to perfect soundness, without the intervention of any healing process. In this case there could be neither deception nor collusion.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
If ye were blind; if your ignorance were simple, and not affected, and you were sensible that your blindness were not incurable, and your sin might be pardoned. This appeareth to be the sense from the opposition of it, now ye say, We see, in the latter part of the verse. They were indeed blind, as to any true and saving sight of Christ, and of the true way of salvation by believing in him; seeing (as they apprehended) a way of salvation without Christ, by the works of the law, and wilfully shutting their eyes against the glorious light of the gospel shining on them.
Ye should have no sin; you should not have so much sin, so much guilt upon your souls, as you now have: though your ignorance had been sin, yet it had not been so great a sin as a wilful shutting your eyes against the light.
But now ye say, We see; now that you have an opinion that you see, and boast in your knowledge of the law, as if you were the only men that saw; and upon this presumption reject the doctrine of salvation; therefore your sin remaineth, by it you not only conclude yourselves under the guilt of sin, but your sin remaineth upon you, not pardoned to you: which teacheth us, that without a true and saving sight of sin, and such a one as carrieth the soul out of itself to Christ for pardon and remedy, there is no hope of pardon and forgiveness from all the mercy that is in God.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
41. If ye were blindwantedlight to discern My claims, and only waited to receive it.
ye should have no sinnoneof the guilt of shutting out the light.
ye say, We see; thereforeyour sin remainethYour claim to possess light, while rejectingMe, is that which seals you up in the guilt of unbelief.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Jesus said unto them, if ye were blind,…. And sensible of it, and knew yourselves to be blind, and were desirous of light and knowledge,
ye would have no sin: or your sin would not be so aggravated; it would not be imputed to you; it would be pardoned and taken away from you: for the sense cannot be, that their blindness would not have been criminal, or they should have no sin in them, or any done by them; only, that had this been barely their case, there would have been some hope of them, that their sin might be forgiven, and put away, and be no more; see 1Ti 1:13;
but now ye say we see; they thought themselves to be wise and knowing, and stood in no need of any illumination from him, but were obstinate and hardened in their infidelity, and wilfully opposed and shut their eyes against all the light and evidence of truth:
therefore your sin remaineth; untaken away, yea, immoveable, or unpardonable; the guilt of it abode upon them; nor was there any hope of its being removed from them; owning that they saw, and yet believed not: sinning wilfully against light and knowledge in rejecting Jesus, as the Messiah, they sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost, which is never forgiven. And so the Ethiopic version renders it, “your error shall not be forgiven you”; see Mt 12:32.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
If ye were blind ( ). Condition of second class with imperfect indicative in the protasis. The old word is from , to raise a smoke, to blind by smoke (literally and metaphorically). Here, of course, it is moral blindness. If the Pharisees were born morally blind, they would, like idiots, be without responsibility.
Ye would not have sin ( ). Regular form for conclusion of second-class condition, with imperfect.
But now ye say ( ). In contrast to the previous condition. See like contrast in John 15:22; John 15:24. They arrogantly asserted superior knowledge.
We see (). The ignorant mob do not (7:49). It is sin against light and is hopeless (Mark 3:29; Matt 12:31). “Ye are witnesses against yourselves” ( , Mt 23:31).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Ye should have no sin [ ] . Or, ye would have had. The phrase aJmartian ecein, to have sin, occurs only in John, in the Gospel and First Epistle.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And Jesus said unto them,” (eipen autois ho lesous) “Jesus responded to them,” to their direct question.
2) “If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: (ei tuphloi ete ouk an eichete hamartian) “if you all were blind (physically blind) you would not have had sin,” of a morally lawless kind, or if you felt and acknowledged your sins that blind you, you would no longer be blind to my identity, but you are self-righteous, proud, acting as if you need no Savior, Mat 5:20; Mat 15:22-24. Therefore you are responsibly blind rebels against God.
3) “But now ye say, We see; (nun de legete hoti blepomen) “Yet, now and continually you all say that we see,” we have twenty-twenty vision, and are responsible, do not stumble, are not blind, need no help from you, Luk 19:10; Joh 1:11; Joh 5:43.
4) “Therefore your sin remaineth.” (he hamartia humon menei) The sin of you therefore remains,” unconfessed, unpardoned, and unforgiven, as the sin of unbelief in the Son of man, Joh 3:18; Joh 8:24. See also Isa 5:21; Pro 3:7; Rom 1:22; Rom 12:16; Luk 18:14; 1Jn 1:8-10. You all remain under self-indictment, Joh 8:21.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
41. If you were blind. These words may be explained in two ways; either, that ignorance would, in some degree, alleviate their guilt, if they were not fully convinced, and did not deliberately fight against the truth; or, that there was reason to hope that their disease of ignorance might be cured, if they would only acknowledge it. The former view is supported by the words of Christ,
If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, (Joh 15:22.)
But as it is added in this passage, but now you say you see, in order that the points of contrast may correspond to each other, it appears to be more consistent to explain them to mean, that he is blind who, aware of his own blindness, seeks a remedy to cure his disease. (281) In this way the meaning will be, “If you would acknowledge your disease, it would not be altogether incurable; but now because you think that you are in perfect health, you continue in a desperate state.” When he says that they who are blind have no sin, this does not excuse ignorance, as if it were harmless, and were placed beyond the reach of condemnation. He only means that the disease may easily be cured, when it is truly felt; because, when a blind man is desirous to obtain deliverance, God is ready to assist him; but they who, insensible to their diseases, despise the grace of God, are incurable.
(281) “ Pour guairir son mal.”
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(41) If ye were blind, ye should have no sin.His answer is that He does not place them among those who are in this second sense blind. If they were among those which see not they would be conscious of their blindness, and would seek for spiritual light. They would ask, Who is He, Lord, that we may believe on Him? and would not ask in vain. In that case their present rejection of Him would arise from ignorance willing to be overcome, and this ignorance, not being wilful, would not be sin. Conscious ignorance would be the first step towards knowledge.
But now ye say, We see.Their true place is among those who were spiritually blind, and were unconscious of it, they which see, they which think they see. For them the first step towards true spiritual light must be a consciousness of blindness. As it is, as long as they think that they see, there is no ground for hope. (Comp. Mat. 9:12-13.)
Therefore your sin remaineth.The word therefore should probably be omitted. The words Your sin remaineth, or better, Your sin abideth (comp. Note on Joh. 3:36), stand alone in their awful solemnity. They stand side by side with Ye say, We see. The two states are one. The assertion of spiritual knowledge and independence was the original cause of sin (Gen. 3:4), and while spiritual pride exists sin cannot cease.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
41. If ye were blind If, like this man, you were utterly and innocently without the power to see.
Ye should have no sin Ye would be perfectly blameless for not seeing. Just as blameless as this man for not seeing the sun without the power. No man is required to use a power he never could possess. If a man never could possess the power for right, he could never be condemned for wrong. If, indeed, he brings his powerlessness upon himself, he cannot plead it in excuse.
But now ye say, We see By your own confession, which is true, you are able to see the truth; and yet, wilfully, ye see falsely; your judgment shall be that ye shall lose the opportunity to see truth, and ye shall be abandoned to that false seeing which is a real blindness. As both their not seeing truth and their untruthful seeing were willful, there was no excuse; their sin stood permanent, recorded, unpardoned, eternal.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘Jesus said to them, “If you were blind you would have no sin, but now you say ‘We see’. So your sin remains”.’
Jesus’ reply was uncompromising. Those who have the most privilege are those who are most accountable. If they were physically blind they would bear no blame. It would not be their fault. They would not thereby be guilty (v. 3), for they would not be able to do anything about it. But when men claimed to be able to ‘see’ spiritually they were the more to blame if they then failed to come to the light. Thus by their failure they remained in sin, and it was all the deeper because they claimed to be enlightened men. The sin that prevented them from coming was thus a deeper sin, and that therefore made them doubly guilty.
For a man who sees can have no excuse for avoiding the light. Thus sin weighs heavily upon him when he does. These Pharisees who were accompanying Jesus may be confident that they knew the Scriptures, but if that knowledge did not illuminate their hearts and make them respond to Christ it could only make them the more guilty. They must beware that they do not avoid the full light of Christ. For if they do not come to full faith in Him no efforts of theirs will rid them of sin. (Compare Isa 6:10; Isa 42:18-19).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Joh 9:41 . Alas! Jesus intends to say, Ye are not blind. Were ye blind (as I intended the in Joh 9:39 ), that is, people who are conscious of being destitute of the true knowledge, [55] then ye would be without sin , i.e . your unbelief in me would not be sinful, just because it would involve no resistance to divine truth, but would simply imply that ye had not yet attained thereunto, a result for which ye were not to blame. But now ye assert we see (profess to be possessors of divine truth); the consequence whereof is, that your sin remaineth (is not removed), [56] i.e . that your unbelief in me not only is sinful, but also this, your sin continues to exist , remains undestroyed ( , Theodoret, Heracleon), because your conceit is a perpetual ground for rejecting me, so that you cannot attain to faith and the forgiveness of sin. “Dicendo videmus , medicum non quaeritis,” Augustine. “Si diceretis: caeci sumus , visum peteretis et peccatum jam desiisset,” Bengel. According to Lcke (so also substantially Baeumlein), whom J. Mller follows ( Lehre v. d. Snde , I. p. 286, Exo 5 ), the meaning is: “Were you blind, i.e . without the capability of knowledge, there would be no sin (guilt) in your unbelief; you would then be unable to believe with knowledge. But so long as you say, notwithstanding all your blindness, We see, and therefore do not put away your conceited self-deception, so long your unbelief cannot depart, but must remain.” Against this view are the following objections: 1. , because answering to in Joh 9:39 , cannot denote incapacity for knowledge; 2. The antithesis . suggests for , not the objective, but the subjective meaning; 3. is thus taken in different senses in the two halves. Other imported meanings are: Were you blind , like the multitude which you regard as blind, perhaps you would have no sin, etc. (Ewald, as though besides John had written also or ); or (Hengstenberg), if ye suffered merely from the simple blindness of the human race, which is blind from birth, ye would have no sin of decisive significance, no unpardonable sin; as though there were the slightest reference to anything of the kind! Substantially correct are Erasmus, Beza, Grotius, and several others; comp. Luthardt and Ebrard; still . . ought not to be transposed into, “ then would your sin forgive you .” The explanation of Godet is a natural consequence of his interpretation of Joh 9:39 , but founders on the words . [57]
[55] Not, physically blind , as Nonnus, Theophylact, Euth. Zigabenus, and several others here, as well as in ver. 40, after the example of Chrysostom, wrongly understand.
[56] Not, “ The sin remains yours ” (Ewald). Comp. Joh 15:16 .
[57] “ S’ils appartenaient la multitude ignorante, leur incrdulit l’gard de Jsus pourrait n’tre qu’une affaire d’entranement (it would be merely a sin against the Son of man); mais clairs, comme ils le sont, par la connaissance de la parole de Dieu, c’est sciemment, qu’ils rejettent le Messie ” (this is a sin against the Holy Ghost). In this case, however, Jesus must have said: , not , which Godet, it is true, regards merely as an allusion to the question in ver. 40; whilst in reality it is the key to the correct understanding of the entire passage.
OBSERVATION.
The absence from the Synoptics of the miracle performed on the man born blind ought to have found its explanation simply in the circumstance that it did not take place in the (Galilean) sphere of the synoptic narrative, and ought not to have been made the ground of an attack on its historical credibility, as was done by Strauss (who compares the healing of Naaman in 2Ki 5:10 ); by Weisse (who derives the narrative, by means of a misunderstanding, from Joh 9:39 ); and by Baur (who regards this story as the intensified expression of the healings of the blind recorded by the synoptists, p. 245 f.); whilst Gfrrer, on the contrary, content with asserting the presence of unhistorical additions, comes to a conclusion disadvantageous to the synoptists.
According to Baur (p. 176 ff.), the narrative of the miracle was definitely and intentionally shaped, so as to set forth faith in its pure objectivity , the susceptibility to the divine as it is affected by the pure impression of the divine element in the , even when it is not yet aware who is the subject of these . “It clings to the thing itself; and the thing itself is so immediately divine, that in the thing, without knowing it, one has also the person.” In such wise are arbitrary, and not even relevant (see Brckner), abstractions from history converted into the ground of history. Ammon makes the occurrence a natural healing of an inflammation of the eyes! a counterpart to the converse travesty of some of the Fathers, who express the opinion that the blind man lacked eyes altogether , and that Jesus formed them out of the , as God at first formed man from the earth (see especially Irenaeus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Nonnus); comp. on Joh 9:6 f.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
REFLECTIONS
My soul! contemplate in this man, thy state by nature; blind indeed, from thy birth, and in spiritual things, as ignorant as the very, brute that perisheth. And how long didst thou remain, stumbling over the dark mountains of sin, and unbelief? Nay, wouldest thou not have remained so forever, had not Jesus passed by, and created life and light to thy spiritual apprehension? It was indeed the sabbath day when Jesus did this; for He himself became the very sabbath of thy soul. And in this sovereign act of grace, how sweetly hath he proved to thee his own eternal power and Godhead! Surely thou canst say, with this fellow-partaker in the rich mercy: Since the world began was it not heard, that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.
Oh! ye blind Pharisees! How long will ye have to learn a right knowledge of the Person and righteousness of Jesus? An whole eternity ye will have to mourn over the darkness of blackness forever! How awfully verified, in that day which unfolds all, will be the words of Jesus! When ye have lifted up the Son of Man; then shall ye know that I am. Yes! know it, to your everlasting condemnation; but not to your joy, as the Lord’s people!
Reader! Doth Jesus now put the question to you, and to me, which he put to the man born blind, when he had opened his eyes; Dost thou believe on the Son of God? Hath the Lord opened our eyes? Have we seen the king in his beauty? Seen ourselves in our deformity? Can we, from the heart, and from the soul, fall down and worship him? crying out, as one of old: Rabbi, thou art the Son of God! Thou art the King of Israel! Oh! the blessedness of being taught by him! Surely the Lord will say to us, as he did to the Apostle, on his confession: Blessed art thou Simon Bar-jona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.
Ver. 41. But now ye say, We see ] If, after conviction, men run away with the bit in their mouths, the sin is the greater; but their case is deplorable, qui quod verum sit neque sciunt, neque sustinent dicere, as Basil complains of the Western Church in his time.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
41. ] The distinction in expression between the two clauses must be carefully borne in mind. Our Lord is referring primarily to the unbelief of the Pharisees and their rejection of Him. And He says, ‘If ye were really blind (not, ‘ confessed yourselves blind:’ Kuinoel, Stier, De Wette), ye would not have incurred guilt; but now ye say, “We see;” ye believe ye have the light, and boast that ye know and use the light; and therefore your guilt abideth, remaineth on you.’ Observe there is a middle clause understood, between ‘ye would never have incurred guilt,’ and ‘your guilt remaineth;’ and that is, ‘ ye have incurred guilt; ’ which makes it necessary to take the as in a certain sense implying : viz. ‘by the Scriptures being committed to you, by God’s grace, which ought to have led you to faith in me.’
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
If ye were blind. Assuming the condition as an actual fact. See App-118.
should = would.
no. Greek. ou. App-105.
remaineth = abideth. See note on Joh 1:32.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
41.] The distinction in expression between the two clauses must be carefully borne in mind. Our Lord is referring primarily to the unbelief of the Pharisees and their rejection of Him. And He says, If ye were really blind (not, confessed yourselves blind: Kuinoel, Stier, De Wette), ye would not have incurred guilt; but now ye say, We see; ye believe ye have the light, and boast that ye know and use the light; and therefore your guilt abideth, remaineth on you. Observe there is a middle clause understood, between ye would never have incurred guilt, and your guilt remaineth; and that is, ye have incurred guilt; which makes it necessary to take the as in a certain sense implying : viz. by the Scriptures being committed to you, by Gods grace, which ought to have led you to faith in me.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Joh 9:41. sin) If ye would say, we are blind, ye would seek sight, and your sin would have already ceased. Sin exists even in the intellect; for blindness affects the sight, and is synonymous with sin.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Joh 9:41
Joh 9:41
Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would have no sin: but now ye say, We see: your sin remaineth.-If ye were really blind ye would not be guilty as you are now in claiming that you are not blind and so refuse to be taught. Because you refuse to acknowledge your blindness and turn to Jesus, you remain in your sins. [If they were blind, that is, entirely without knowledge and means of enlightenment, they would have no moral responsibility, but they claimed to see and had the greatest opportunities for knowing. Therefore, when they closed their eyes against the truth and thus willfully refused to see, they were guilty. Our responsibility is measured by our opportunities and will thus be judged at the last day.]
Questions on John Chapter Nine
E.M. Zerr
1. What unfortunate ‘case did Jesus see?
2. To what general cause did the disciples ascribe it?
3. What special information did thcy ask Jesus?
4. Instead, what did Jesus inform them?
5. State the proper period to work.
6. What constitutes the night?
7. How long was the light of Jesus to shine?
8. What did he do for the blind man?
9. State what he told him to do.
10. And what were the results?
11. Whose attention was drawn to the circumstance?
12. State their question.
13. What did others say?
14. Who settled the question?
15. Tell what was asked him.
16. Was his answer correct?
17. What question could he not answer?
18. To whom was this man presented?
19. On what day had the miracle been done?
20. What was repeated to the man?
21. Did he answer correctly?
22. What accusation did some make against Jesus?
23. How did others reason in reply?
24. What took place among them?
25. For what did they call upon the blind man?
26. Repeat his answer.
27. What did the Jews profess to doubt?
28. Whom did they call to settle it?
29. How far were they willing to testify?
30. What did they profess not to know?
31. State their suggestion.
32. Give the reason for their attitude.
33. Calling the blind man, what was he told to do?
34. On what was the suggestion based?
35. What did the man profess not to know?
36. Tell what he did know.
37. What further inquiry did they pretend to make?
38. Of what did the blind man accuse them?
39. At this, what did they say to revile him?
40. What ignorance did they profess?
41. How did they credit Moses?
42. What seemed marvelous thing to the blind man?
43. State his reasoning about hearing sinners.
44. Was the blind man inspired?
45. What had happened for the first time?
46. Tell what he accredited to Jesus.
47. Of what did the Jews accuse the blind man?
48. This disqualified him for what?
49. What did they do for him?
50. Who next found him?
51. State his question.
52. How did he reply?
53. What did Jesus then say?
54. How did this conversation result?
55. For what reason did He come into the world?
56. How was it to affect sight and blindness?
57. Who overheard Jesus?
58. What denial did they put in question form?
59. Tell how they might have been innocent.
60. On what ground was their sin to remain?
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
sin
Sin. (See Scofield “Rom 3:23”).
Fuente: Scofield Reference Bible Notes
If: Joh 15:22-24, Pro 26:12, Isa 5:21, Jer 2:35, Luk 12:47, Luk 18:14, Heb 10:26, 1Jo 1:8-10
Reciprocal: Lev 13:13 – he is clean 2Ch 18:23 – Which way Pro 29:8 – Scornful Isa 42:19 – Who is blind Jer 8:8 – We Zep 1:17 – they shall Mat 21:27 – We cannot tell Joh 19:11 – the greater Rom 2:19 – art confident 1Ti 1:7 – understanding Jam 4:17 – General 2Pe 1:9 – blind 2Pe 2:21 – it had 1Jo 2:9 – he is Rev 3:17 – blind
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
1
If ye were blind . . . no sin. Jesus is not teaching that ignorance of one’s duty will justify him in sin; the general teaching of the New Testament is against that. (See Act 17:30.) But if a person is actually uninformed on the matter of his duty, he would not be guilty of “sinning against light and knowledge,” which is the sin Jesus meant these Jews might not have been guilty of. Ye say, we see. These Jews were really blind to the truths they so much needed, but their pride of self-importance kept them from giving the spiritual light a chance to shine into their heart. That caused them to be just as responsible for the obligations imposed by the spiritual enlightenment as if they actually possessed the knowledge of it.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Joh 9:41. Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye would not have sin: but now ye say, We see; your sin abideth. If, Jesus says, ye were really blind, unable to open your eyes to, and indeed unconscious of, the existence of the light now shining round you, you would not have sin,the sin of rejection of the light would not lie at your door. But it is not so. They are their own judges. They themselves say, We see; and yet they come not to Him. Their sin abideth; they are guilty of that sin, and so long as they refuse to come to Him the sin must abide. So at the close of chap. 3 we read: he that disobeyeth the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 41
If ye were blind; conscious of your blindness and ignorance.